(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that patents relating to systems for performing marine seismic surveying were unpatentable because they made no error justifying the disturbance of their obviousness decisions.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. WesternGeco owns a patent for a system to survey the ocean floor and they believed that a competing system owned by ION infringed on their patent. WesternGeco sued. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages including lost profit damages. ION argued that the lost profit damages was not allowed and the appellate court agreed with them. The US Supreme Court disagreed and reversed and remanded the decision stating that lost profits for a domestic patent was permissible under the Patent Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a government contracts action claiming underpayment for outpatient medical services provided for current and former military service members, the Federal Claims Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed where plaintiffs are not barred by bringing a breach of contract claim by a release included in the contract the government is accused of breaching.

Stock market spammers are at it again. This time promoting the R.C.H.A stock.

Stock market spammers still trying to push this stock.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived environmental organizations' lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Forest Service to ban hunters' use of lead ammunition, which is ingested by scavenger wildlife species and causes lead poisoning. Held that the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was justiciable. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court order decertifying a class action relating to an alleged aphrodisiac called 'Cobra Sexual Energy' because the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class on the basis of the plaintiff's inability to prove restitution damages through the full refund model because plaintiff's damages model matched his theory of liability and because his damages model was supportable on evidence that could be introduced on trial and whether plaintiff could provide damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full refund model was a question of fact to be decided at trial.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the District Court's determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partly affirming, partly vacating, and remanding the district court dismissal of a False Claims Act action brought against three pharmaceutical companies in a case involving off-label drug use and kickbacks to doctors because claims were substantially similar to those that had already been publicly disclosed, vacating to determine whether the situation qualified for the original source exception.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the district court holding, after a bench trial, that the asserted claims of a patent relating to the treatment of schizophrenia with iloperidone administered based on the genotype of the patient were infringed and not invalid.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that a chemical compound that mirrored a patented chemical compound was encompassed by the description that only portrayed one of the arrangements in the claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of an interference claim for lack of standing and remanding for further proceedings because the description of a method for removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles was a sufficient written description under the Patent Act because although the description only gave optical density rather than particles per ml, this was enough of a disclosure to convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding of patents relating to boron-containing small molecules used to treat fungal infections, holding that all of the claims of a patent owned by a company were unpatentable for obviousness.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of two putative antitrust class actions alleging that a pharmaceutical company took steps to block the entry of generic versions of its leukemia-treatment drug into the U.S. market. The plaintiffs, including several labor union benefit funds, claimed that the drugmaker engaged in anticompetitive conduct by bringing sham infringement lawsuits against manufacturers trying to enter the market with generic versions of that drug. Dismissing the complaints, the district court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged their claims, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that it was proper to remand to New York state court a case in which a labor union health plan sought disclosure of a patent dispute settlement agreement between pharmaceutical companies and the generic manufacturer of the EpiPen. Affirmed the district court's remand order, in this special proceeding under New York law seeking pre‐action disclosure.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in an action alleging wage and hour violations, finding substantial evidence that individual questions would predominate and also that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reversed the denial of class certification in a wage-hour lawsuit brought by registered nurses against a hospital.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal rule governing appeals from orders granting or denying class certification is not subject to equitable tolling. The plaintiff contended that his failure to comply with the 14-day limit specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) should be tolled, because he had acted reasonably in the particular circumstances here. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the time limit for appealing class certification rulings cannot be equitably tolled. Justice Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion.

(United States Second Circuit) - Questions on appeal concern cross-jurisdictional tolling of a class action. Because the appeal presents state law questions that New York’s courts have yet to address, the court certifies the case to the New York Court of Appeals.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

IJazzy Classical Is Haiti’ Only Jazz Radio Station.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by reporting to a credit bureau that a debtor had nine unpaid bills of $60, rather than simply indicating an aggregate debt of $540. Reversed the district court, in this case involving co-pays for physical therapy sessions.